Is there such a thing (since I know very little about law) of an "incompetent guardian"?
Seems like this could be proven, since Michael is living with another woman--thus committing adultery and thereby, not competent as Terri's guardian.
Surely there are ways and means to do this in the courts?? Have her lawyers tried this?
A person is ineligible to serve as guardian for a ward if a material conflict exists or develops between the interests of the guardian and those of the ward.
Any interested person may file a motion to have a guardian disqualified; indeed, such a motion is just about the only sort of legal action where the Schindlers would have or would have had real standing. One of the general problems the Schindlers have had with their other motions is that they didn't have any standing to demand access to evidence; the guardianship challenge is clearly the right primary legal focus.
Unfortunately, even though the Schindlers filed a motion to challenge Michael's guardianship in 2002--about two years ago--Greer has granted Michael/Felos perpetual continuances and has not yet heard the case. Unfortunately, while it would be possible (though likely futile) to appeal a decision by Judge Greer denying the challenge, a decision can't be appealed until it's made.
Surely there are ways and means to do this in the courts?? Have her lawyers tried this?
As noted, the guardianship challenge was filed in 2002. Unfortunately, I know of no way for them to force Greer to stop postponing it. If he were to hear the case, I think it would be very difficult for him to find that there is not a clear and material conflict of interest between Michael and Terri, especially given that Michael has openly said that he wants to marry the mother of his children and can't do so until Terri's dead. But since he won't hear the case, I don't know what the Schindlers can do.
One thing the Schindlers did try was to challenge Michael's authority to do certain things as guardian given that he had failed to perform some of the legally-required functions. Judge Greer dismissed the motion on the basis that such motions were intended for use only in cases where no other relief could be sought; in the extant case, relief could be sought by other means, to wit, by filing a challenge of guardianship. Since the Schindlers were obviously aware that such alternate means of relief was available, as evidenced by their having filed such a motion, there was no basis to grant relief under the challenge of specific authority.
If something doesn't seem quite right about the logic, don't worry--it means you're probably normal. Unfortunately, the court system in Florida seems to believe that relief is "available" if one can file for it, whether or not one's case will ever actually be heard.
"Have her lawyers tried this?"
Everything I've read leads me to the conclusion that this judge is utterly corrupt.
Unfortunately, so is the Florida Supreme Court.
Her lawyers can try anything, and these corrupt judges will just swat it down.
A hundred years ago somebody would have called them out.
"Have her lawyers tried this?"
Everything I've read leads me to the conclusion that this judge is utterly corrupt.
Unfortunately, so is the Florida Supreme Court.
Her lawyers can try anything, and these corrupt judges will just swat it down.
A hundred years ago somebody would have called them out.